RUTHWELL Runic INSCRIPTION. 31 
Kingdom of Northumbria, which was inhabited principally by 
Angles. Ethelfrid, the first victorious King of all Northumbria, 
was probably the first who extended the dominion of the Angles 
over Annandale and Nithsdale, which had previously belonged 
to the Picts. His successor, Edwin, extended these conquests 
considerably in what is now called Galloway, and also northward 
even beyond the Forth, on the banks of which Edwinsbury or 
Edinburgh will, by its name, preserve the name of its founder for 
ever. Oswald and Oswin confirmed and extended these conquests 
for the Northumbrian Kingdom. At Whitby, in Northumbria, 
in this century was born Caedmon, the first of the many great 
poets who have enriched the English language. It seems to 
have been customary at that time to inscribe passages taken from 
his poem called “ The Dream of the Holy Rood’’ on ecclesi- 
astical monuments in England. The Angles would be quite as 
well acquainted with the Runic alphabet of the fathers 
as with the Roman letters. This accounts for the Anglian 
verses of Caedmon being inscribed in Runic_ characters. 
There is no trace of this kind of writing having been used in 
Germany or by the Saxons and Franks. It was the exclusive 
possession of the Goths and their descendants, the nations round 
the Baltic, viz., the Norwegians, Swedes, Danes, Angles, Jutes, 
etc. From my knowledge of Anglo-Saxon, and on con- 
sultation of the Anglo-Saxon Dictionary and Grammar, 
I had come to the conclusion that the late Professor 
Stephens was under a delusion when he imagined he had found 
the words “ Caedmon mae fauetho ’’ (Caedmon made me) at the 
top of the monument. No such word as fauetho exists in any of 
the dialects of Anglo-Saxon. The inscription is written in the 
Northumbrian dialect of Anglo-Saxon, from which the Scottish | 
language has been developed, as the English is the development 
of the Mercian or Midland dialect. No such form as fauetho is 
Tecognised by Grammarians. In order to corroborate my own 
decision of the worthlessness of Stephens’ alleged discovery, I 
wrote to Dr W. W. Skeat, Professor of Anglo-Saxon at Cam- 
bridge, asking his opinion. He replied (7th January, 1901) :— 
“T think there must be some mistake about Prof. Stephens’ 
discovery. I do not find that anyone has ever taken it seriously. 
Nor do I know where to find authority for the alleged verbal 
form fauetho. It is evident, therefore, that the late George 
